urbangirl:Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.

I'm guessing the reason you "never got the answers you were looking for" is because no one understood your premises. Speaking as a bisexual man and a political activist, I find it sad and somewhat appalling that the right wing has been so successful at controlling the terms of debate of this particular issue.

I'm glad that people ITT were able to draw out your fundamental misunderstanding so that it could be corrected and you could get the information you wanted, but I hope that in turn you remember that those of us who have been and are fighting for equal rights have been answering these same questions over and over for years and decades. Please understand that it is frustrating and painful to have this discussion sometimes, because for many of us it feels like what you're saying is, "Convince me that you deserve equal rights. I don't care enough to find any information myself," even if that's not what you intended.

LucklessWonder:Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)

LucklessWonder:Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)

I hate to sound like a douchebag but just because you couldn't manage to make a marriage work doesn't mean other people can't.

urbangirl:This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

The US already has civil unions, we just call them marriages. Religion is not required to marry in this country. That's why this whole argument is moot, and every single church is infringing on the first amendment by opposing marriage equality. Congress has essentially codified Christianity into law by limited marriage to one man and one woman.

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

Over population controls while still fulfilling the social phsycological requirements for a healthy individual that can contribute to society w/o risking additional burden on the shaky bridge that spans the problems inherit in an over populated biome?

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

It may be "obvious" but it's no less stupid than the rest of them.

Unless you've got a citation of a marriage law applying to heterosexual couples that requires reproduction it is just as irrelevant as the religious positions.

Jim_Callahan:mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

And yet the marriage inequality bunch conveniently ignores the rest of that passage, because it would affect their own lives.

NkThrasher:Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

It may be "obvious" but it's no less stupid than the rest of them.

Unless you've got a citation of a marriage law applying to heterosexual couples that requires reproduction it is just as irrelevant as the religious positions.

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

You know when you're out in public and you see a downs kid coming your way and he raises his hand because he wants to give you a high five because that's the only way he's been taught to interact with strangers so he doesn't loose his shiat and give bear hugs and grab crotches, so you go ahead and give him the high five, even though you hate germs and don't like touching people you don't know, because not giving him the high five would make you look like an ass and he's just trying to do the best he can with what he's been dealt so why not?

buck1138:Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

You know when you're out in public and you see a downs kid coming your way and he raises his hand because he wants to give you a high five because that's the only way he's been taught to interact with strangers so he doesn't loose his shiat and give bear hugs and grab crotches, so you go ahead and give him the high five, even though you hate germs and don't like touching people you don't know, because not giving him the high five would make you look like an ass and he's just trying to do the best he can with what he's been dealt so why not?

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

Oh look, someone else who doesn't know that there are ways for a gene to be selected for other than just popping out babies.

/look up kin selection for a start//I'd give my life for two brothers or four half-brothers

Koalaesq:My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d. The second one is between you and your creator and involves no one else, whereas the first defines how you treat other people and their rights. It makes it rather clear you have no right to abridge the laws of man just because of your private belief in the law of g-d.

LucklessWonder:Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

From the NKJV:1 Corinthians 6:

Romans 1:

So Paul was the first to use Christ to condemn things that Jesus never saw as important enough to mention.

Not to mention hypocritical.

being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,a wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

THE UNMERCIFUL DESERVE TO DIE!

Might as well say "DEATH TO FANATICS!"

Also in the New Testament: James says that faith alone will not save you - you must show your faith through your works.

James 2:14-26

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Let me know when the Christian Fundamentalists embrace THAT rather than Paul's words.

Their rejection of those words (and their weasely way of working around them) did more to turn me off from Christianity than anything else.

It doesn't matter what the Bible says about gay marriage or anything else for that matter. Even if Jesus were quoted saying, "Verily I say unto thee, don't let the queers get married," it still wouldn't mean anything in our secular society. And you Judaism fundamentalists sound just as goddamned kooky as Christian and Islam fundamentalists. Spelling "g_d" with an underscore is delusional imbecility.

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

buck1138:pointmissed.jpgIf anyone here thinks Gallup is sympathetic to liberal causes, you should think again.If a Neocon hands me a drink, best to check it out before gulping it down.Don't be so gullible, THAT is the point.You can go back to being offended needlessly now.

Serious Black:abb3w: The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".

I think every reason except for "civil unions are sufficient" and maybe "undermines traditional family structure" boil down to "because." And the second one is only if you really think that kids raised by any set of guardians other than a mother and a father will inevitably end up worse than kids raised by a mother and a father.

Koalaesq:Diogenes: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't legal recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.

To be fair, we COULD modify all the laws about civil unions to mirror the rights granted in marriage, but I doubt that would ever happen. Then it would just be about the religious aspect of the union, which frankly I don't care about and belongs to each person privately. That's one of my big issues, that gay people in civil unions are cut off from lots of legal redress rights just because of who they marry. It's infuriating and unjust.

codergirl42:Because separate but equal is not equal and civil unions don't always carry the same benefits as marriage depending on what state you are in. The federal government also doesn't recognize civil unions.

If we were to make civil unions and marriage the same in every way except the name what is the point, why not just call it marriage and treat all families the same.

Antimatter:Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If civil unions contained all the rights and privileges of marriage, then they would be redundant, as marriage already covers those things. Often, they are a much reduced set of rights, for no real reason.

Pincy:urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't legal recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.

It's a matter of two consenting adults of the same sex being able to have the same options available to them as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

Carth:urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Here is a page talking about the differences between civil unions and marriages.

Pincy:No one is trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, so you can safely forget about that strawman.

Every marriage in the US is a civil contract. Whether a straight person gets married through some sort of secular civil ceremony or through a religious wedding ceremony, they are still signing the same marriage license, which is a completely secular civil contract.

So that straight couple who gets married, they get a bunch of tax breaks from the Feds. The same sex couple who gets married in Washington doesn't get those tax breaks. This is just one of many examples of how civil unions are not the same as being married.

buck1138:Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.

codergirl42:It has nothing to do with forcing churches to do anything. Having a secular ceremony isn't any less important than a religious one. It's the legal framework that differs. Each state has different laws and benefits when it comes to civil unions. In washington state we had everything but marriage civil unions. So gay couples got the same benefits as straight couples but we werent allow to call it marriage. Other states may have less rights associated with civil unions than marriage. I think you are confusing secular and religious marriage which are just different types of ceremonies with civil unions and marriage which are different legal entities.

Link

Actually, several of you are confusing ‶marriage" with ‶wedding". ‶Marriage" ≠ ‶Wedding." The two terms are not synonyms. You don′t hear someone say, ‶I′m going to be the Best Man / Maid of Honor at my best friend′s marriage.", nor do you hear a betrayed spouse say to his/her partner while demanding a divorce, ‶Our wedding is over!" Those make no sense. It′s always the other way around.

A marriage is a legal partnership between two (or perhaps more) consenting adults, originally intended to legitimize heirs and forge alliances between families, clans, guilds, tribes, nations, etc. A wedding is an optional ceremony of some sort that participants in a marriage can, if they so choose, participate in to formally initiate the marriage partnership in the eyes of their religion and/or society, but not in the eyes of the law (signing the marriage license does that).

(The legitimizing heirs thing was vital, because they didn′t have Maury Povich and his DNA paternity tests in ancient times, so they needed some way for a man to be able to confidently point to a boy or young man and say, ‶That boy right there is my son and heir, and that other boy over there isn′t." Mothers didn′t have that problem, as they always knew who their children were, for obvious reasons. This is why adultery was considered such a very serious sin, since it yanked the foundation out from under the confidence that this provided to men.)

Anyway, churches do not perform marriages. They perform weddings. So do Justices of the Peace, captains of ships, etc. No one seriously intends to force churches to perform weddings that they feel would be against their doctrines, including same-sex, polygamous, etc.

The problem here is that certain forms of Christianity seek to impose their doctrines on others by force of law, not merely through preaching, proselytizing, persuasion, etc. This is part and parcel of that. They seek to own the very concept of marriage itself. Not just their weddings. Marriage itself!

Sorry, but marriage is a concept that long predates not only Christianity, but Judaism. Cultures far older than Abraham are known to have had partnerships similar or identical to what we call marriage. Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) did not invent marriage, and they do not own it, and thus they have no right to define it. Not. Theirs.

This is why civil unions do not suffice. Even if they were made somehow 100% equal to marriage, allowing this would be tacitly allowing Christianity to claim ownership of the concept of marriage, or at least of the word, and it′s Not. Theirs. At all. Period. This is non-negotiable.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Well, the good news for equality folks is that organized religion is a slowly dying institution amongst the youngest generations.

Very slowly. This is happening more rapidly. The shift on Gay Marriage looks likely to allow it to be rammed down the throats of the 13 hold out states via Constitutional Amendment by 2035, while the unaffiliated won't even be a majority until 2050 or so.

LucklessWonder:Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

From the NKJV:1 Corinthians 6:

Romans 1:

I still haven't seen the part where it says it's our duty to create a government that, as closely as possible, emulates the values of God, and when in doubt, will put words into His mouth.

I saw all sorts of stuff in there about not passing judgment and loving others and whatnot.

Dr Dreidel:"don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

If one wants to take that passage at face value, it also clearly says nothing about homosexual females. I guess God has no problem with women in same-sex relationships.

urbangirl:Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.

What do you mean when you say "never gotten the answers I was looking for"? Because - to me - that means you DID get answers, but because they didn't match your preconceived estimation of what the answers SHOULD have been, you ignored them.

It's interesting that you claim you asked your gay friends. You'd think - if you knew them well at all - that you'd've had ample opportunity to ferret out the core issues all by yourself simply from observation.Instead - you're just coming off as intentionally clueless in the hopes that someone will validate your prejudices. I mean - really - NO one up to date has made it clear to you that - no - churches will NOT "be required" to wed any couple they choose not to (because that's how it has ALWAYS been)? Likewise - somehow you were completely shielded from ANY information about why civil unions are entirely inadequate compared to "real" civil marriage?

Let's put this to the test. What is logically wrong about the statement "non-heterosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else --- they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else"? I'm not asking about the moral side of the statement, just the basic rhetoric (hint: consider that the name of the federal law is the "Defense of Marriage Act" and the implications of the statement compared to the underlying assumption implicit in the law's name).

As for people being "opposed" to marriage equality because of "religion". Fine - don't have one. But to win the argument with religion (presuming that somehow Freedom of Religion Expression is tied to thisability to influence civil laws) - you still need to FIRST sort out how your religion's beliefs trumps all of the religions that DO support same-sex marriage --- after all aren't THEIR freedoms equal to yours? If not - aren't you then implying that any notion of "equality" as a core value of being American is a sham?

In so far as it's a distinction based on attaching precise meanings to words, yes, it would appear to be one.

Deucednuisance:That's like saying "I have two 'children': one 'daughter' and one 'son'" is making a semantic distinction.

Ayep. I'm fine with that.

Merely because a distinction is semantic, doesn't mean that it doesn't allow important implications, by more precisely delineating categories that might otherwise be lumped together sloppily.

Of course, sometimes it's just someone snarking off about blood plasma; but those tend not to be particularly interesting.

ursomniac:Let's put this to the test. What is logically wrong about the statement "non-heterosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else --- they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else"? I'm not asking about the moral side of the statement, just the basic rhetoric

Sameness is an equivalence relation, which implicitly depends on the choice of metric; examining a different metric may yield differences.

Also, rights implicitly involves an "ought" ordering, which in turn is dependent on one's is-ought bridge.

ursomniac:If not - aren't you then implying that any notion of "equality" as a core value of being American is a sham?

Abb3w is correct: it is a semantic distinction, albeit a vitally important one; just as the distinction between ‶Rights" and ‶Powers" in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (especially the Tenth Amendment to the other nine, especially the Ninth) is a semantic distinction, albeit one upon which our entire nation and system of government are supposed to be based.

Just because a distinction is semantic doesn′t diminish its importance in any way. Semantics can be vitally important. Consider how much of modern demagoguery depends on the populace not understanding basic semantics of terms that get thrown around:

• There is not now, never was, and never was intended to be, any such thing as ‶States′ Rights." States don′t have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Not the Right to enact legislation, levy taxes, maintain a justice system or (in the case of the Feds) a national defense, etc., nor even the Right to exist! They are grantedPowers to do all of those things, by the consent of the Governed People, who retain the Right to revoke those Powers at any time.

Only (Natural) Persons have, or can have, Rights in the sense described in the Declaration of Independence. Aggregate Persons (corporations, unions, trusts, etc.) can have limited pseudo-Rights for the sole purpose of allowing them to participate as equals with Natural Persons in contract and civil tort law (which is why it′s possible to sue a corporation, or for a corporation to own property). If the Supreme Court had had a proper understanding of this ‶semantic distinction," Citizens United may well have been decided differently.

• Full Single-Payer, let alone the Public Option (the real ‶ObamaCare" which did not pass), let alone what actually got passed and became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, often mis-called ‶ObamaCare") is not ‶socialized medicine." At most, those first two would qualify as mandatory and optional, respectively, ‶socialized medical insurance." True socialized medicine would mean that the Government fully owns and taxpayer-funds everything to do with healthcare, from pharmacies to hospitals, clinics, medical and dental schools, etc., as well as paying the salaries of all doctors, dentists, nurses, orderlies, hospital and clinic administrative and bookkeeping and even janitorial staff, medical school faculties and staff, etc. etc. etc.

These are just a few examples. ‶Marriage" vs. ‶Wedding" is yet another example of this.

COMALite J:Just because a distinction is semantic doesn′t diminish its importance in any way. Semantics can be vitally important.

"The Beginning of Wisdom is the definition of terms." -- attributed to Socrates of Athens

Deucednuisance:abb3w likes to play the part of dispassionate arbiter of fact around these parts. Coolly delivered sarcasm is a oft-knocked arrow in his quiver.

I think a bit less often than obsessive attention to precise meanings and precise category distinctions -- though I've not actually bothered to do a statistical analysis.

Deucednuisance:So, I ask: What did the string of words "An interesting semantic distinction." mean?"Yes, they are quite different and people shouldn't conflate them, it's interesting that so many do."or"A quibble, mere semantics!"I honestly can't get a read on the intended tone, and if I misread that, I'll accept a clarification.

The latter would seem to be more the "uninteresting semantic distinction" category. The former is much closer, with additional connotations in this case of "potentially useful (for altering the manner in which people think about the questions)". Or at least, that's the particular angle piquing my interest.

I tend to take semantics pretty seriously (up until having to enter Humpty-Dumpty/"Master of all Masters" territory of which particular unique label gets attached to which unique category). A quick Google search of Fark suggests the closest I've come to using the phrase "mere semantics" on Fark would be here... which would be the sarcasm.

abb3w:The latter would seem to be more the "uninteresting semantic distinction" category. The former is much closer, with additional connotations in this case of "potentially useful (for altering the manner in which people think about the questions)". Or at least, that's the particular angle piquing my interest.

On the ‶Words mean things," I think it was Rush Limbaugh who popularized that phrase on his show. Ironic that he′s one of the main demogogues who, perhaps ignorantly but it sure seems to be deliberately, misuses words for political effect.